This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-05-408R
entitled 'Department of Education's Update of the State and Other Tax
Allowance for Student Aid Award Year 2005-2006' which was released on
March 22, 2005.
This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this
document to Webmaster@gao.gov.
This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this
material separately.
March 22, 2005:
The Honorable David R. Obey:
Ranking Minority Member:
Committee on Appropriations:
House of Representatives:
Subject: Department of Education's Update of the State and Other Tax
Allowance for Student Aid Award Year 2005-2006:
Dear Mr. Obey:
This letter responds to your request concerning our January 21, 2005,
report Student Financial Aid: Need Determination Could Be Enhanced
through Improvements in Education's Estimate of Applicants' State Tax
Payments (GAO-05-105). As you know, in 2003, the Department of
Education (Education) proposed an update to the state and other tax
allowance, a part of the federal need analysis for student financial
aid. Most federal aid, including Pell Grants and student loans, and
some state and institutional aid are awarded based on a student's cost
of attendance less the student's and/or family's ability to pay these
costs--known as the expected family contribution (EFC). The allowance,
which accounts for the amount of state and other nonfederal taxes paid
by students and families, effectively reduces the EFC. Education
proposed to update the allowance on the basis of information compiled
by the Internal Revenue Service's Statistics of Income (SOI) Division,
specifically state and other taxes paid by taxpayers and reported on
their federal income tax returns for tax year 2000. Our January 2005
report discussed (1) the factors that had affected the updating of the
tax data on which the allowance is based, (2) the effects Education's
proposed 2003 update would have had on financial assistance for student
aid applicants for the 2004-2005 award year, (3) the limitations
associated with the method used to derive the allowance, and (4)
various strategies available to address the limitations. Although the
proposed 2003 update to the state and other tax allowance did not take
effect, shortly before we issued our report--on December 23, 2004--
Education updated the state and other tax allowance for award year 2005-
2006 on the basis of information compiled by SOI for tax year 2002,
which was collected in the same manner as the tax year 2000 data. For
this update, Education used the same methodology that was used for the
proposed 2003 update. As of January 2005, Education has begun
processing student aid applications for the 2005-2006 award year using
the updated allowance.
In light of Education's 2004 update of the state and other tax
allowance for award year 2005-2006, you asked us to update certain
analyses included in our January 2005 report, which focused on
Education's prior proposal. In particular, you asked us to determine
how Education's update will affect, with respect to the 2005-2006 award
year, (1) the state and other tax allowance, by state and dependency
status; (2) the average EFC, by state; (3) eligibility for Pell Grants,
by state, household income, and dependency status; (4) the amount of
the average Pell Grant award, by state, household income, and
dependency status; and (5) aggregate Pell Grant expenditures and
overall student eligibility for Pell Grants. You also asked us to
include the effects if Education had adopted one of the strategies
discussed in our report for addressing the limitations associated with
calculating the allowance.
Education's 2004 update decreases the state and other tax allowance for
most states for the 2005-2006 award year and will, thereby, increase
the expected family contribution (EFC) for a majority of student aid
applicants; the increase in expected family contribution will, in turn,
affect the allocation of federal aid. Specifically, we estimate that
the 2004 update to the state and other tax allowance will increase EFCs
by about $440 on average for those with an increase, with EFC changes
being larger for students from states with larger changes in their
allowance. With respect to Pell Grants, our national analysis shows
that the 2004 update will likely result in a decrease in Pell Grants
for about 35 percent of students, and an additional 81,000 applicants
(1.5 percent) will no longer be eligible for the grant; taken together,
the average reduction amongst those with a decrease in their amount
will be about $130. Collectively, this will decrease overall Pell Grant
expenditures by about $250 million. Because these EFC changes will
affect Pell and other grant aid, Stafford and PLUS loan award amounts
will be affected as well. Our analysis shows that, as EFCs increase,
those with income above $25,000 are most likely to have their
subsidized Stafford loan awards affected. The overall impacts on EFC,
Pell Grants, and loans will be slightly less when compared to what
would have occurred under the proposed update of 2003.
In our January 2005 report, we identified four strategies to address
some of the limitations associated with the tax allowance. Using an
updated sample of aid applicants and tax data, these options would have
ranged in their impact on federal expenditures for the Pell Grant and
other federal programs. For example, depending on the option chosen,
the effect would have ranged from a $200 million decrease in Pell Grant
expenditures to a $200 million increase in the 2005-2006 award year.
We are providing this information more specifically in nine enclosures.
In providing updated information for this letter, we replicated the
methodology we used for our January 2005 report. For that report, we
used Education's aid applicant sample file from the 2002-2003 award
year to estimate changes to the expected family contribution and Pell
Grant awards nationally that would have resulted from Education's 2003
update. In providing information for this letter, however, we used
Education's aid applicant sample file from the 2003-2004 award year to
provide updated information. We also analyzed Education's Cost
Estimation and Analysis Division's Statistical Abstract (CEAD STAB)
data to estimate the proportion of financial aid applicants who could
experience a change in their federal loans as a result of the update.
We also reviewed and analyzed state and other tax data from the
Internal Revenue Service (Statistics of Income Division), Bureau of the
Census (Census), Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA), and the Institute
on Taxation and Economic Policy (ITEP). We conducted reliability
assessments on the datasets used from Census, BEA, and ITEP, and they
are disclosed in the appropriate enclosures. We conducted our work in
February 2005 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing
standards. We provided Education with a copy of our draft letter for
review and comment. Education provided a technical comment, which we
incorporated.
As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its content
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this letter until 30 days
after its date. At that time, we will send copies of this letter to the
Secretary of Education and other interested parties. The letter will
also be available on GAO's home page at [Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov].
If you have any questions about this letter, please contact me at (202)
512-8403 or Jeff Appel, Assistant Director, at (202) 512-9915. You may
also reach us by e-mail at [Hyperlink, AshbyC@gao.gov] or [Hyperlink,
AppelC@gao.gov]. Tranchau Nguyen and Jeff Weinstein were also key
contributors to this letter.
Sincerely yours,
Signed by:
Cornelia M. Ashby:
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues:
[End of Section]
Enclosures:
Enclosure I: Comparison of Prior State and Other Tax Allowance,
Published in 1993, with That Proposed in 2003 and That Published in
2004, by Income Level, for Parents and Independents with Children.
Enclosure II: Comparison of Prior State and Other Tax Allowance,
Published in 1993, with That Proposed in 2003 and That Published in
2004, for Dependents and Independents without Children.
Enclosure III: Difference between Prior Allowance, Published in 1993,
and Education's 2004 Updated Allowance and Estimated EFC Impact, by
State.
Enclosure IV: Percentage of Recipients That Will Experience a Decrease
in Pell Grant Awards As a Result of Education's 2004 Updated Allowance,
Average Pell Grant Received Based on Prior Allowance, and Average
Decrease as a Result of Updated Allowance, Including Those No Longer
Eligible for an Award, by State.
Enclosure V: Percentage of Recipients with a Decrease in Pell Award
Based on a Change from the Prior Allowance, Published in 1993, to
Education's 2004 Updated Allowance, by Household Income and Dependency
Status.
Enclosure VI: Median Percentage Change in Amount of Pell Award for
Those with a Decrease Based on Change from the Prior Allowance,
Published in 1993, to Education's 2004 Updated Allowance, by Household
Income and Dependency Status.
Enclosure VII: Percentage of Students Likely to Have a Change in
Subsidized Stafford Loans Based on Change from the Prior Allowance,
Published in 1993, to Education's 2004 Updated Allowance, by Household
Income and Dependency Status.
Enclosure VIII: Framework for Evaluating Options Identified to Change
the State and Other Tax Allowance relative to the Prior Allowance.
Enclosure IX: Simulation of Tax Allowances under Various Options, by
State--Families with Adjusted Gross Income of $15,000 or More.
[End of Section]
Enclosure I:
Table 1: Comparison of Prior State and Other Tax Allowance, Published
in 1993, with That Proposed in 2003 and That Published in 2004, by
Income Level, for Parents and Independents with Children:
State of Residence: Alabama;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004; 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 2.
State of Residence: Alaska;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993:3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 1.
State of Residence: Arizona;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 21004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: Arkansas;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 2.
State of Residence: California;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 6.
State of Residence: Colorado;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: Connecticut;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 6.
State of Residence: Delaware;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: District of Columbia;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 10;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 6.
State of Residence: Florida;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 1.
State of Residence: Georgia;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Hawaii;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: Idaho;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Illinois;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Indiana;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: Iowa;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Kansas;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Kentucky;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Louisiana;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 1.
State of Residence: Maine;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 5.
State of Residence: Maryland;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 6.
State of Residence: Massachusetts;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 5.
State of Residence: Michigan;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Minnesota;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 5.
State of Residence: Mississippi;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 2.
State of Residence: Missouri;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: Montana;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Nebraska;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Nevada;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 1.
State of Residence: New Hampshire;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: New Jersey;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 7.
State of Residence: New Mexico;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: New York;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 11;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 10;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 7.
State of Residence: North Carolina;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 5.
State of Residence: North Dakota;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 1.
State of Residence: Ohio;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 5.
State of Residence: Oklahoma;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 3.
State of Residence: Oregon;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 10;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 6.
State of Residence: Other areas;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 2.
State of Residence: Pennsylvania;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Rhode Island;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 6.
State of Residence: South Carolina;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: South Dakota;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 0.
State of Residence: Tennessee;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 0.
State of Residence: Texas;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 1.
State of Residence: Utah;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Vermont;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 5.
State of Residence: Virginia;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 8;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 4.
State of Residence: Washington;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 1.
State of Residence: West Virginia;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 2.
State of Residence: Wisconsin;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 10;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 7;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 9;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 6.
State of Residence: Wyoming;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income less than $15,000: 2004: 1;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: Income $15,000 or more: 2004: 0.
Source: 1993, 2003, and 2004 Federal Registers.
Note: This enclosure corresponds to table 1, found on page 12 of our
January 2005 report.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
Enclosure II:
Table 2: Comparison of Prior State and Other Tax Allowance, Published
in 1993, with That Proposed in 2003 and That Published in 2004, for
Dependents and Independents without Children:
State of Residence; Alabama;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 2.
Alaska;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 0.
Arizona;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 2.
Arkansas;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
California;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 5.
Colorado;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Connecticut;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Delaware;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
District of Columbia;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 6;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 6.
Florida;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 1;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 0.
Georgia;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Hawaii;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Idaho;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Illinois;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 2.
Indiana;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Iowa;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Kansas;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Kentucky;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Louisiana;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 2.
Maine;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Maryland;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 5.
Massachusetts;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Michigan;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Minnesota;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Mississippi;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 2.
Missouri;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Montana;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Nebraska;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Nevada;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 1.
New Hampshire;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 1;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 1.
New Jersey;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
New Mexico;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
New York;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 7;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 5.
North Carolina;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
North Dakota;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 1;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 1.
Ohio;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Oklahoma;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Oregon;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 6;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 5.
Other areas;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 2.
Pennsylvania;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Rhode Island;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
South Carolina;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
South Dakota;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 0.
Tennessee;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 0.
Texas;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 0.
Utah;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Vermont;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Virginia;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 3;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 3.
Washington;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 0.
West Virginia;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 2;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 2.
Wisconsin;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 5;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 4;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 4.
Wyoming;
Allowance Percentage: 1993: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2003: 0;
Allowance Percentage: 2004: 0.
Source: 1993, 2003, and 2004 Federal Registers.
Note: This enclosure corresponds to table 2, found on page 13 of our
January 2005 report.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
Enclosure III:
Table 3: Difference between Prior Allowance, Published in 1993, and
Education's 2004 Updated Allowance and Estimated EFC Impact, by State:
State: Alabama;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 61;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: $ 7,602;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]: $
319.
State: Alaska;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -1;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 62;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 16,350;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
274.
State: Arizona;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 67;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,014;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
328.
State: Arkansas;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 63;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 6,898;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
430.
State: California;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -1;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 46;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,180;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
209.
State: Colorado;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 75;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 11,408;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
578.
State: Connecticut;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: +1;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: +2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 0;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,230;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]: 70.
State: Delaware;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -4;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 77;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,583;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
858.
State: District of Columbia;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 61;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 8,938;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
484.
State: Florida;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 66;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 8,311;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
310.
State: Georgia;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 68;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,994;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
388.
State: Hawaii;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -4;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 70;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,118;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
763.
State: Idaho;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 69;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 7,902;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
351.
State: Illinois;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -1;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 59;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 11,915;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
238.
State: Indiana;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 74;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,299;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
415.
State: Iowa;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 78;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,751;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
632.
State: Kansas;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 76;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,951;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
397.
State: Kentucky;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 66;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 8,206;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
340.
State: Louisiana;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 52;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 13,032;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
463.
State: Maine;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 79;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,276;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
630.
State: Maryland;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 76;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 11,637;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
473.
State: Massachusetts;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 80;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 12,357;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
724.
State: Michigan;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -4;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 74;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,873;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
765.
State: Minnesota;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 81;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 11,419;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
706.
State: Mississippi;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 55;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 6,913;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
301.
State: Missouri;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 60;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,842;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
445.
State: Montana;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 71;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 8,156;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
531.
State: Nebraska;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 78;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,658;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
580.
State: Nevada;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -1;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: +1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 49;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,837;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
195.
State: New Hampshire;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 73;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 13,701;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
828.
State: New Jersey;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: 0;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: +1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 1;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 16,076;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]: 70.
State: New Mexico;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 64;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 7,514;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
304.
State: New York;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 69;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,068;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
653.
State: North Carolina;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 69;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 8,160;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
344.
State: North Dakota;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -4;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 79;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,155;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
758.
State: Ohio;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 73;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,286;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
421.
State: Oklahoma;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 65;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 7,132;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
300.
State: Oregon;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 69;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,530;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
536.
State: Pennsylvania;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 67;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 12,073;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
502.
State: Rhode Island;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 63;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 11,723;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
490.
State: South Carolina;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 69;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,341;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
581.
State: South Dakota;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 64;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,716;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
595.
State: Tennessee;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 53;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,195;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
381.
State: Texas;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -1;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 52;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 9,341;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
192.
State: Utah;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 73;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 6,185;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
366.
State: Vermont;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 79;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,815;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
449.
State: Virginia;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 74;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,703;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
627.
State: Washington;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 54;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 11,440;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
437.
State: West Virginia;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -2;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 68;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 8,827;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
564.
State: Wisconsin;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -3;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: -1;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 81;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 10,830;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
640.
State: Wyoming;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: -2;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: 0;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 60;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: 12,275;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]:
436.
State: Total USA[F];
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Families[A]: N/A;
Percentage point change in the state and other tax allowance:
Individuals[B]: N/A;
Estimated percentage of students with an increase in their EFC[C]: 61;
Average EFC, in dollars, under the prior allowance for those with an
increase[D]: $ 9,964;
Estimated average EFC dollar increase for those with an increase[E]: $
443.
Source: GAO analysis of the 2003-2004 Free Application for Federal
Financial Aid (FAFSA) applicant file.
Notes: This enclosure generally corresponds to table 3, found on pages
17-18 of our January 2005 report. N/A indicates "not applicable." We
assessed the reliability of the FAFSA applicant file by conducting
electronic testing of key variables for obvious problems in accuracy
and completeness, interviewing appropriate Education officials, and
reviewing related documentation, and we determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
[A] Families are defined to include parents of dependent students and
independent students with children.
[B] Individuals are defined to include independent students without
children and dependent students. Dependent students whose state of
residence is different from that of their parents were counted as being
from their parents' state. Since the EFC for a family is based upon
both the parents' and the student's income, the EFC changes reported
above for each state may reflect not only the change in the allowance
for that state but also the change for the state of residence for
students attending school in another state. For example, Connecticut,
which has an increased allowance, may have families with an EFC
increase because the children of those families may be attending school
and residing in another state with a decreased allowance.
[C] The sampling errors for the percentage of students with an increase
in their EFC are at or below 5 percentage points for all states.
[D] The sampling errors for the average EFC--under the current
allowance--for those with an increase are at or below 5 percent for all
states.
[E] The sampling errors for the average EFC increase for Connecticut,
the District of Columbia, and New Jersey are above 10 percent. The
sampling errors for Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada,
North Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia, and
Wyoming are above 5 percent but no more than 10 percent. All other
state figures have a sampling error at or below 5 percent.
[F] The total row includes the 50 U.S. states, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, the Federal States of Micronesia, Guam, the
Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas, Palau, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and other U.S. territories.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
Enclosure IV:
Table 4: Percentage of Recipients That Will Experience a Decrease in
Pell Grant Awards As a Result of Education's 2004 Updated Allowance,
Average Pell Grant Received Based on Prior Allowance, and Average
Decrease as a Result of Updated Allowance, Including Those No Longer
Eligible for an Award, by State:
State: Alabama;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 37;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: $ 1,937;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -$ 109.
State: Alaska;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 24;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,401;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -65.
State: Arizona;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 41;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,791;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -111.
State: Arkansas;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 44;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,933;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -145.
State: California;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 21;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,794;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -86.
State: Colorado;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 44;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,743;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -156.
State: Connecticut[D];
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 0;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: N/A;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: N/A.
State: Delaware;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 54;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,611;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -193.
State: District of Columbia;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 41;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,874;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -154.
State: Florida;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 42;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,816;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -108.
State: Georgia;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 43;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,634;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -105.
State: Hawaii;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 46;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,893;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -210.
State: Idaho;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 47;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,879;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -126.
State: Illinois;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 26;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,690;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -86.
State: Indiana;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 45;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,728;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -119.
State: Iowa;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 55;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,715;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -184.
State: Kansas;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 48;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,766;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -124.
State: Kentucky;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 40;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,743;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -116.
State: Louisiana;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 33;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,972;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -113.
State: Maine;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 51;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,806;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -173.
State: Maryland;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 47;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,746;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -112.
State: Massachusetts;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 49;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,738;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -178.
State: Michigan;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 47;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,707;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -197.
State: Minnesota;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 55;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,700;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -180.
State: Mississippi;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 36;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,951;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -115.
State: Missouri;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 38;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,770;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -119.
State: Montana;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 48;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,911;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -172.
State: Nebraska;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 50;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,731;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -166.
State: Nevada;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 22;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,573;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -76.
State: New Hampshire;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 52;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,682;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -182.
State: New Jersey[E];
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 0;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,530;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -93.
State: New Mexico;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 39;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,767;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -110.
State: New York;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 46;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,978;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -171.
State: North Carolina;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 45;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,898;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -118.
State: North Dakota;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 48;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,858;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -224.
State: Ohio;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 43;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,692;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -116.
State: Oklahoma;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 42;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,834;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -113.
State: Oregon;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 41;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,824;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -156.
State: Pennsylvania;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 42;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,743;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -127.
State: Rhode Island;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 43;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,829;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -114.
State: South Carolina;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 48;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,870;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -159.
State: South Dakota;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 45;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,785;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -165.
State: Tennessee;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 36;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,895;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -108.
State: Texas;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 24;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,758;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -82.
State: Utah;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 46;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,854;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -144.
State: Vermont;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 48;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,687;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -130.
State: Virginia;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 49;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,806;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -163.
State: Washington;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 34;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,804;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -115.
State: West Virginia;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 46;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,938;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -168.
State: Wisconsin;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 52;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,706;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -173.
State: Wyoming;
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 36;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: 1,877;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -117.
State: Total USA[F];
Estimated percentage of recipients with a decrease in Pell Grant[A]: 36;
Average dollar Pell Grant under the prior allowance for those with a
decrease[B]: $ 1,806;
Estimated average Pell Grant dollar decrease for those with a
decrease[C]: -$ 131.
Source: GAO analysis of the 2003-2004 FAFSA applicant file.
Notes:This enclosure generally corresponds to Table 4, found on pages
19-20 of our January 2005 report. N/A indicates "not applicable."
[A] The sampling errors for the percentage of students with a decrease
in their Pell Grant for the District of Columbia and Vermont are just
over 5 percentage points. All other state figures have a sampling error
at or below 5 percentage points.
[B] The sampling errors for the average Pell Grant--under the current
allowance--for those with a decrease for Alaska and New Jersey are over
10 percent. The sampling errors for Delaware, the District of Columbia,
Hawaii, Maine, Montana, Nevada, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Rhode
Island, South Dakota, Vermont, and Wyoming are above 5 percent but no
higher than 10 percent. All other state figures have a sampling error
at or below 5 percent.
[C] The average reflects the reduction for those with a decrease,
including both those who would have retained and those who would have
lost eligibility. The sampling errors for the average Pell Grant
decrease for Alaska, the District of Columbia, New Jersey, and Vermont
are above 10 percent. The sampling errors for Delaware, Hawaii, Idaho,
Maine, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North
Dakota, Rhode Island, South Dakota, and Wyoming are above 5 percent but
no higher than 10 percent. All other state figures have a sampling
error at or below 5 percent.
[D] No one in the sample from Connecticut exhibits a decrease in his or
her Pell Grant.
[E] The actual figure for New Jersey is 0.1 percent, which rounds to 0
percent for the purposes of this table.
[F] The total row includes the 50 U.S. states, the District of
Columbia, American Samoa, the Federal States of Micronesia, Guam, the
Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas, Palau, Puerto Rico, the Virgin
Islands, and other U.S. territories.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
Enclosure V:
Figure 1: Percentage of Recipients with a Decrease in Pell Award Based
on a Change from the Prior Allowance, Published in 1993, to Education's
2004 Updated Allowance, by Household Income and Dependency Status:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of the 2003-2004 FAFSA applicant file.
Notes:This enclosure corresponds to figure 3, found on page 21 of our
January 2005 report. The sampling errors are all 5 percentage points or
less.
[End of figure]
[End of Section]
Enclosure VI:
Figure 2: Median Percentage Change in Amount of Pell Award for Those
with a Decrease Based on Change from the Prior Allowance, Published in
1993, to Education's 2004 Updated Allowance, by Household Income and
Dependency Status:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of the 2003-2004 FAFSA applicant file.
Notes:This enclosure corresponds to figure 4, found on page 22 of our
January 2005 report. The sampling errors are all 5 percentage points or
less.
[End of figure]
[End of Section]
Enclosure VII:
Figure 3: Percentage of Students Likely to Have a Change in Subsidized
Stafford Loans Based on Change from the Prior Allowance, Published in
1993, to Education's 2004 Updated Allowance, by Household Income and
Dependency Status:
[See PDF for image]
Source: GAO analysis of 2004 CEAD STAB data.
Notes:This enclosure corresponds to figure 5, found on page 24 of our
January 2005 report. The sampling error for independents with household
income of $100,001 or more is just over 5 percentage points. All other
figures have sampling errors of 5 percentage points or less. We
assessed the reliability of the CEAD STAB file by conducting electronic
testing of key variables for obvious problems in accuracy and
completeness, interviewing appropriate Education officials, and
reviewing related documentation, and we determined that the data were
sufficiently reliable for our purposes.
[End of figure]
[End of Section]
Enclosure VIII:
Table 5: Framework for Evaluating Options Identified to Change the
State and Other Tax Allowance relative to the Prior Allowance:
Change in federal Pell Grant expenditure[F];
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: -$0.3 billion;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: -$0.1 billion;
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: -$0.05 billion;
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]:
-$0.2 billion;
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: + $0.2 billion;
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: -$0.2 billion.
Percentage of students facing a reduction in Pell Grant award;
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: 36.0;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: 23.9;
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: 18.6;
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]: 33.8;
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: 2.3;
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: 28.5.
Percentage retaining eligibility;
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: 34.5;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: 23.0;
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: 17.8;
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]: 32.5;
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: 2.2;
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: 26.9.
Percentage not retaining eligibility (number of students affected)[G];
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1.5;
(81,000);
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: 0.9;
(46,000);
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: 0.8;
(45,000);
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]: 1.3;
(72,000);
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: 0.1;
(4,000);
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: 1.6;
(88,000).
Average dollar change in Pell Grant award for those with a decrease[H];
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: -$131;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: -$108;
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: -$142;
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]: -$123;
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: -$94;
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: -$175.
Change in expected family contribution[I];
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: + $3.2 billion;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: + $1.7 billion;
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: + $1.0 billion;
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]: + $2.8 billion;
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: -$2.8 billion;
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: + $3.0 billion.
Percentage of students facing an increase in EFC;
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: 60.8;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: 46.8;
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: 35.4;
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]: 60.2;
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: 4.7;
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: 48.4.
Average dollar change in EFC for those with an increase[J];
Updated: Updated 2005-2006 tables: + $443;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology[A]: + $308;
Strategy II: BEA/Census[B]: + $477;
Strategy II: CPS (ASEC)[C]: + $391;
Strategy II: ITEP[D]: + $261;
Strategy III: Standard: allowance (4%)[E]: + $633.
Source: GAO analysis.
Notes:This enclosure corresponds to table 9, found on page 37 of our
January 2005 report. All alternatives are based on information that
would have been available to Education as of June of 2004 for
publication in the December 2004 Federal Register. We assessed the
reliability of the BEA, Census, CPS, and ITEP data by reviewing
information available online from the associated websites, interviewing
relevant officials, and reviewing related documentation, and we
determined that the BEA data were sufficiently reliable for our
purposes in this analysis. However, we were unable to determine if the
Census, CPS, and ITEP data were reliable for our purposes.
[A] The SOI with Revised Methodology figures are based on the Internal
Revenue Service's (IRS) 2002 Statistics of Income (SOI) data and were
calculated for each income band by dividing the aggregate total taxes
paid deduction by the aggregate adjusted gross income for families and
by dividing the aggregate state and local income taxes by the aggregate
adjusted gross income for individuals.
[B] The BEA/Census figures are based on 2003 Bureau of Economic
Analysis and U.S. Census data and were calculated by dividing the sum
of property taxes, general sales and gross receipts taxes, and
individual income taxes from the U.S. Census by personal income from
the BEA for families and by dividing the sum of general sales and gross
receipts and individual income taxes from the U.S. Census by personal
income from the BEA for individuals. Note that BEA and U.S. Census data
are not provided separately by income band.
[C] The CPS figures are based on the Current Population Survey's (CPS)
Annual Social and Economic Supplement (ASEC) and were generated based
on a 3-year average of the median effective tax rate, by state, across
2001, 2002, and 2003 CPS (ASEC) data, as prescribed by CPS
documentation for the study of state-based information in the CPS. The
median effective tax rate reflects the median across households of the
sum of state income taxes paid and household property taxes divided by
total personal income for families and of state income taxes paid
divided by total personal income for individuals.
[D] The ITEP figures are based on the Institute on Taxation and
Economic Policy's (ITEP) analysis of tax data, which presents tax rates
that already take personal income into account. ITEP figures were
calculated for each income band by summing general sales tax rates,
other sales and excise tax rates, property tax rates, and personal
income tax rates for families and by summing general sales tax rates,
other sales and excise tax rates, and personal income tax rates for
individuals. As explained in the GAO report Student Financial Aid: Need
Determination Could Be Enhanced through Improvements in Education's
Estimate of Applicants' State Tax Payments, GAO-05-105, Washington, DC,
January 21, 2005, we were unable to determine the reliability of the
ITEP data.
[E] The standard allowance of 4 percent is based on an estimate of the
median household across states using CPS data.
[F] The estimated expenditure of the Pell Program in award year 2005-
2006 is about $13 billion under the current allowance.
[G] The sampling error of those not retaining eligibility for ITEP is
above 10 percent. All others have a sampling error of 5 percent or
less. Figures for the number of students not retaining eligibility are
rounded to the nearest $1,000.
[H] The estimated average Pell award for award year 2005-2006 is about
$2,430 under the current allowance, which was published in the 1993
Federal Register.
[I] The estimated sum of EFCs across all FAFSA applicants in award year
2005-2006 is about $82 billion under the current allowance, which was
published in the 1993 Federal Register.
[J] The estimated average EFC in award year 2005-2006 is about $6,850
under the current allowance, which was published in the 1993 Federal
Register.
[End of table]
[End of Section]
Enclosure IX:
Table 17: Simulation of Tax Allowances under Various Options, by State-
-Families with Adjusted Gross Income of $15,000 or More:
State: Alabama;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 4;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 2;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 3;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 3;
Strategy II: ITEP: 7.
State: Alaska;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 2;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 2;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 1;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 1;
Strategy II: ITEP: 2.
State: Arizona;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 4;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 7.
State: Arkansas;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 2;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 4;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 7;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: California;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 6;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Colorado;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 6;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 7.
State: Connecticut;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 6;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Delaware;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 4;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 5.
State: District of Columbia;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 9;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 6;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 9;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 8;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Florida;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 3;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 2;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 1;
Strategy II: ITEP: 5.
State: Georgia;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 6;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Hawaii;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 9;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 13;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Idaho;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 6;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Illinois;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Indiana;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 4;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Iowa;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Kansas;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 6;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: Kentucky;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 6;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 7;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Louisiana;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 3;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 2;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 2;
Strategy II: ITEP: 7.
State: Maine;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 8;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 5;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 6;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: Maryland;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 8;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 6;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Massachusetts;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 8;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 5;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 6;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Michigan;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 8;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Minnesota;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 8;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 5;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 6;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 7;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: Mississippi;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 4;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 2;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 3;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 3;
Strategy II: ITEP: 7.
State: Missouri;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Montana;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 6.
State: Nebraska;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Nevada;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 2;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 2;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 1;
Strategy II: ITEP: 4.
State: New Hampshire;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 6;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 4;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 3;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 2;
Strategy II: ITEP: 4.
State: New Jersey;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 7;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: New Mexico;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 4;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 3;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: New York;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 10;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 7;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 8;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 7;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: North Carolina;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 5;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 6;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: North Dakota;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 3;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 2;
Strategy II: ITEP: 6.
State: Ohio;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 5;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 6;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: Oklahoma;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 3;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: Oregon;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 9;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 6;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 8;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: Other areas[B];
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 3;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 2;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 3;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 3;
Strategy II: ITEP: 6.
State: Pennsylvania;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 6;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 7.
State: Rhode Island;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 8;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 6;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 9.
State: South Carolina;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: South Dakota;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 3;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 0;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 1;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 2;
Strategy II: ITEP: 5.
State: Tennessee;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 2;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 0;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 1;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 1;
Strategy II: ITEP: 5.
State: Texas;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 2;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 2;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 1;
Strategy II: ITEP: 5.
State: Utah;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 5;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 6;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Vermont;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 5;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 6;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 7;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Virginia;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 7;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 4;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 6;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 5;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 5;
Strategy II: ITEP: 7.
State: Washington;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 3;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 1;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 2;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 1;
Strategy II: ITEP: 6.
State: West Virginia;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 5;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 2;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 3;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 7;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 4;
Strategy II: ITEP: 8.
State: Wisconsin;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 9;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 6;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 7;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 6;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 8;
Strategy II: ITEP: 10.
State: Wyoming;
Prior: Tables published in 1993: 2;
Updated 2005-2006 tables: 0;
Strategy I: SOI with revised methodology: 1;
Strategy II: BEA/Census: 4;
Strategy II: CPS/(ASEC)[A]: 0;
Strategy II: ITEP: 4.
Source: GAO analysis.
Notes:This enclosure corresponds to appendix IV, found on pages 55-56
of our January 2005 report. Under strategy III, the standard allowance
would be 4 percent for every state, based on the median family in the
CPS.
[A] The CPS (ASEC) tax rates were generated based on a 3-year average
of 2001, 2002, and 2003 CPS (ASEC) data.
[B] Other areas includes American Samoa, the Federal States of
Micronesia, Guam, the Marshall Islands, Northern Marianas, Palau,
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and other U.S. territories.
[End of table]
(130459):